Coalition ELO

The idea is simple and is meant to stop consistent bitching among the player base over the current state of the coalition standings EACH AND EVERY SEASON.

We add an ELO system identical to what we have for duels to coalitions. Every coalition starts each season with 1000 ELO and moves up and down based on wins and losses against other coalitions. The coalition with the highest ELO at the end of the season will be the winner. At the end of the season, every coalition's ELO will reset back to 1000 and the process will start over again the following season. THE CATCH: Your coalition must be ranked in Top 5 Coalitions Played for that season to win the season.

Benefits:
1) A Coalition's entire body of work over the season will be taken into account. Thus, no tanking to lower competence in order to increase CP gains.

2) Clans will be better rewarded for beating top clans and coalitions that defeat bottom dwellers will not receive the minimum of +50 CP that allows them to farm weak clans. This will fix the unfairness that has arises from clans getting 50 CP for beating Winterfell(No offence guys. You are seriously, awesome) while clans like Illyria only get 50 CP from beating a coalition like MK or Syndicate. That is simply not fair.

3) Not playing CWs when leading will not be AS BENEFICIAL as it is under the current system.

Anyways, that is just my two sense. I know there will be critics, but I truly believe that this is the a good system and it will end the constant season to season bitching that has become an AW staple.


Edit: Changed THE CATCH part.

Totally support.

I support because its better than the current system, but beware.

the bluecher2 of clans shall rise up to steal number 1 from the rightful owner.

Written by Permamuted, 22.08.2014 at 22:19

I support because its better than the current system, but beware.

the bluecher2 of clans shall rise up to steal number 1 from the rightful owner.

There are going to be faults with any and all systems. Though, the situation you propose is highly unlikely. bluecher2 succeeds at what he does because the sheer amount of people there are available to farm ELO from. This shouldn't be nearly as big as a problem for coalitions because there aren't but so many to farm. Plus, due to the weakness of opponents that he has to face, bluecher has had to win over 300 duels to get where he is. Could you see any coalition coming anywhere close to that many CWs in a single season? I do recognize that there may be an impact from coalitions following the bluecher path, but I think the proposed solution minimizes this problem in the fairest way.

Or Just bring back the old system where a clan with 2.00 cp went against a clan with .75 cp and only won 28cp or something like that...

Heres a question someone will ask me on it...


What about a clan with comp of 3.18?
Answer: You wont be able to get to that 3.18 probably ever again, everything resets to 1 and start from their..

This would make it more fair, and possibly even "too" fair for those coalitions who get picked on in CWs. But there is flaws to everything.

I think its the best idea out there and would make it really useful, however like mou said there are flaws, and now it means there can still be balance issues but oh well i think it will work out way better than this, so support, maybe we will get this by 2018

Good idea.
Some method to punish elo farmers is needed thought.

Written by Spart, 22.08.2014 at 21:02

2) Clans will be better rewarded for beating top clans and coalitions that defeat bottom dwellers will not receive the minimum of +50 CP that allows them to farm weak clans. This will fix the unfairness that has arises from clans getting 50 CP for beating Winterfell(No offence guys. You are seriously, awesome) while clans like Illyria only get 50 CP from beating a coalition like MK or Syndicate. That is simply not fair.

People keep mentioning Winterfell in posts about CWs and it just makes me sad ;-; Thanks for saying we're awesome

Written by Rin Tohsaka, 23.08.2014 at 09:34

Written by Spart, 22.08.2014 at 21:02

2) Clans will be better rewarded for beating top clans and coalitions that defeat bottom dwellers will not receive the minimum of +50 CP that allows them to farm weak clans. This will fix the unfairness that has arises from clans getting 50 CP for beating Winterfell(No offence guys. You are seriously, awesome) while clans like Illyria only get 50 CP from beating a coalition like MK or Syndicate. That is simply not fair.

People keep mentioning Winterfell in posts about CWs and it just makes me sad ;-; Thanks for saying we're awesome

dont worry Dynamite isnt that much better

Written by Rin Tohsaka, 23.08.2014 at 09:34

Written by Spart, 22.08.2014 at 21:02

People keep mentioning Winterfell in posts about CWs and it just makes me sad ;-; Thanks for saying we're awesome

I know, and I truly don't mean it as an insult towards you guys, but you are just a good example of how people to take advantage of the current CW system. Let's be honest with each other. Winterfell is still a few steps behind some of the other clans that have been around a while. With that said, your coalition has some of the coolest members in AW and I had a blast talking and joking around with yall during the CW the other night. You guys legitimately are awesome people and awesome for willing to CW anyone and try to get better. I mean that!

Written by Spart, 22.08.2014 at 22:27

Written by Permamuted, 22.08.2014 at 22:19

I support because its better than the current system, but beware.

the bluecher2 of clans shall rise up to steal number 1 from the rightful owner.

There are going to be faults with any and all systems. Though, the situation you propose is highly unlikely. bluecher2 succeeds at what he does because the sheer amount of people there are available to farm ELO from. This shouldn't be nearly as big as a problem for coalitions because there aren't but so many to farm. Plus, due to the weakness of opponents that he has to face, bluecher has had to win over 300 duels to get where he is. Could you see any coalition coming anywhere close to that many CWs in a single season? I do recognize that there may be an impact from coalitions following the bluecher path, but I think the proposed solution minimizes this problem in the fairest way.

i know i know, its better than the system we have, but there are potential flaws, say plato eagles and time make a new clan again last month of season, fresh elo. the top clan wont want to play them since its high risk low reward. they win they get +3 elo, the new clan win they get + 20 and the top clan lose a lot of elo. this will cause ceases in clans cwing more than ever.

we need a clan war system that rewards activity, as well as actual merit, a difficult task.

also winterfell are strong on ancient world, but theyre just simply inexperienced on europe, but they will learn, they have players with the required smarts. not to mention theyre all great guys

Written by Permamuted, 23.08.2014 at 11:34

Written by Spart, 22.08.2014 at 22:27

Written by Permamuted, 22.08.2014 at 22:19

i know i know, its better than the system we have, but there are potential flaws, say plato eagles and time make a new clan again last month of season, fresh elo. the top clan wont want to play them since its high risk low reward. they win they get +3 elo, the new clan win they get + 20 and the top clan lose a lot of elo. this will cause ceases in clans cwing more than ever.

we need a clan war system that rewards activity, as well as actual merit, a difficult task.

An impossible task to get everyone to agree on. The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a perfect system. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. At least this system will reward the best coalition to be given the season championship. And if you want, rather than put a limit of 20 CWs to win a trophy, we can require that a coalition be in the Top 5 in Coalition Wars played in order to be considered the season champion. This would be a suitable fix for your presented problem.

Before discussing further, read through this thread:

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9657

Both pages have discussion about this. Too bad people don't like to listen, so it never came through. If only something like this was pushed through while I was active.

Support

Written by Desu, 23.08.2014 at 12:28

Before discussing further, read through this thread:

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9657

Both pages have discussion about this. Too bad people don't like to listen, so it never came through. If only something like this was pushed through while I was active.

I read it and i agree with 90% but mit might be better to clear all elo from the clans each season but still to stack a clans elo in a main elo clan database so that clans can still see their overall prestation dont you think?

Support, but this idea isn't enough on its own and will still have clans farming. We need some way to ensure all clans play all other clans( atleast the best clans) atleast 2-4 games in a season.

Written by minusSeven, 31.08.2014 at 05:38

We need some way to ensure all clans play all other clans( atleast the best clans) atleast 2-4 games in a season.

What you propose is a league style format, but that doesn't work. It has been tested multiple times in the tournament section by many people, and they never finish well(they never finish at all). As I said, this is not a perfect method by any means, but it is a better solution and the best I can think of atm.

Written by Spart, 31.08.2014 at 09:33

Written by minusSeven, 31.08.2014 at 05:38

We need some way to ensure all clans play all other clans( atleast the best clans) atleast 2-4 games in a season.

What you propose is a league style format, but that doesn't work. It has been tested multiple times in the tournament section by many people, and they never finish well(they never finish at all). As I said, this is not a perfect method by any means, but it is a better solution and the best I can think of atm.

I agree but this wouldn't basically change anything. Clans will still bitch about other clans and clans who farm will keep farming and make a good enough comp to win even without playing any of the best clans.

Written by minusSeven, 31.08.2014 at 09:49

Written by Spart, 31.08.2014 at 09:33

Written by minusSeven, 31.08.2014 at 05:38

We need some way to ensure all clans play all other clans( atleast the best clans) atleast 2-4 games in a season.

What you propose is a league style format, but that doesn't work. It has been tested multiple times in the tournament section by many people, and they never finish well(they never finish at all). As I said, this is not a perfect method by any means, but it is a better solution and the best I can think of atm.

I agree but this wouldn't basically change anything. Clans will still bitch about other clans and clans who farm will keep farming and make a good enough comp to win even without playing any of the best clans.

Have you seen how much ELO people gain from farming nowadays in comparison to actually playing a decent duel player? They recieve .6 and other types of decimal while playing people of relative strength you gain about 10(or some other form of double digit) ELO. That means, you are gaining 10 Times the ELO for playing a decent coalition. Therefore, in order to farm a proper amount to win, a coalition would have to play a substantial amount of CWs in comparison to a good coalition. Am I saying it is impossible to farm? No. But it would be a ton harder in this situation. People are always going to complain, but I believe this does minimize a lot of the current issues.

Not a perfect system but miles better than anything else we've so far been able to come up with

Quote:

Not a perfect system but miles better than anything else we've so far been able to come up with

Reviewing all the recent ideas about changing the cw system, I think this is the most promising one.
I support.

Nonetheless, the previously discussed idea to increase to number of cw that counts to 30, 40 or 50 would be easier to implement, because it's a small change of settings and I do think it would improve the actual system.
http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=13394&topicsearch=&page=1

Bump.

I support now..

But is it going to erase all of the current coalitions history? Such as SM with 100s of wins? It will just vanish?

Written by Mr_Own_U, 14.09.2014 at 19:27

I support now..

But is it going to erase all of the current coalitions history? Such as SM with 100s of wins? It will just vanish?

No. Of course not. Why would it delete CW win history? Wins and CWs played will still be kept track of. Just won't be used to determined the season champ.

Big support

Nice stealings of cow's idea.

Yes, this should have always been implemented.

Written by tophat, 17.09.2014 at 09:33

Nice stealings of cow's idea.

I don't know which idea you are talking about, but either way, it is possible for two people to come up with similar ideas without ever having seen the other's work. This has actually happened many times throughout history. So, please refrain from using the word "stealing" unless something has actually been stolen.

With that said, I know how big of a proponent of ELO that Cow was, so I am not surprised at all if he had presented a similar idea at some point in the past. Rather than accuse someone of stealing though, wouldn't it be better to link someone to the topic so that they could see it rather than instantly accusing them of stealing?

Written by Spart, 17.09.2014 at 11:37

Written by tophat, 17.09.2014 at 09:33

Nice stealings of cow's idea.

I don't know which idea you are talking about, but either way, it is possible for two people to come up with similar ideas without ever having seen the other's work. This has actually happened many times throughout history. So, please refrain from using the word "stealing" unless something has actually been stolen.

With that said, I know how big of a proponent of ELO that Cow was, so I am not surprised at all if he had presented a similar idea at some point in the past. Rather than accuse someone of stealing though, wouldn't it be better to link someone to the topic so that they could see it rather than instantly accusing them of stealing?

I am clearly not accusing you of stealing. Afterwind definition of clearly and stealing are modified kk.

Full support